Tripura High Court
M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tripura on 30 January, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.117 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.626 of 2015
In W.P.(C) No.117 of 2016
Petitioner:
M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd.,
a company registered under the
Companies Act,
having its registered office at,
8/1 Lal Bazar Street, Bikaner Building,
Middle Block, 3rd Floor,
Kolkata- 700001
By Advocate :
Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Advocate
-V E R S U S-
Respondents:
1. The State of Tripura,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat,
New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Government of Tripura,
Aranya Bhawan, Pandit Nehru Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN: 799 006
3. The Conservator of Forest,
Udaipur Forest Division,
P.O. & P.S. Udaipur, Gomati Tripura
4. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer,
Udaipur Forest Division,
P.O. & P.S. Udaipur, Gomati Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. B. Datta, Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.626 of 2015
Petitioner:
M/S Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd.,
a company registered under the
Companies Act 1913,
having its registered office at,
P.O. Sadhanashram, Kailashahar,
District: Unokoti Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Advocate
-V E R S U S-
Respondents:
1. The State of Tripura,
Through Chief Secretary, Government of
Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Capital
Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Government of Tripura,
Aranya Bhawan, Pandit Nehru Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN: 799 006
3. The Conservator of Forest,
Udaipur Forest Division,
P.O. & P.S. Udaipur, Gomati Tripura
4. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer,
Udaipur Forest Division,
P.O. & P.S. Udaipur, Gomati Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. B. Datta, Advocate
W.P.(C) Nos.117 of 2016 and 626 of 2015
Page 2 of 6
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Date of hearing & delivery of
Judgment and order : 30.01.2017
Whether fit for reporting :
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] Both these writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.117 of 2016 [M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Tripura and Others] and W.P.(C) No.626 of 2015 [M/S Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Tripura and Others] are clustered as the common question wades through for disposal by a common judgment and order.
[3] Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the judgment dated 18.03.2011 delivered in W.P.(C) No.459 of 2006, there was a negotiated settlement between the petitioner and the respondents and the minutes of the said settlement dated 11.04.2012 has been obtained by the petitioners. The said minutes are recorded under No.F.7(201)/For/FP-12/Part-1/BK/2207-212, Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition. The following is the texts of the said minutes:
W.P.(C) Nos.117 of 2016 and 626 of 2015 Page 3 of 6 "Minutes of the meeting held on 11-04-2012 under the Chairmanship of PCCF, Tripura in connection with the disposal of timber under Udaipur Forest Division related to tender dated 26-11-2004 The following official attended the meeting on behalf of the Forest Deptt.,
1. Dr. A.K. Gupta, Addl. PCCF
2. Sri P.K. Das, CF(TC)
3. Sri C.L. Das, Dist. F.O. South
4. Sri B.K. Agarwal, on behalf of M/S/ FAPL, Kailashahar The following point discussed in the meeting
1. Delivery of timber against the deposited amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs:
As per work order issued in favour of M/S/ Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd., & M/S. Fortuna Green Fields Pvt. Ltd, vide letter No.12,649-58 & No./12,659-68 respectively, requested to deposited @ Rs.2.50 lakhs each as advance. DFO, Udaipur vide letter No.17,940 dated 18/01/2006 confirmed that Rs.2.50+ Rs.2.50 lakhs=Rs.5.00 lakhs has been deposited both the farm. It is decided that timber will be supplied from the existing old stock against the deposited amount subject to approval of the Govt.
2. Delivery of rest timber:
After deliberation it is decided that rest of the timber will be delivered from the present stock as per govt. approved rate and for taking outside the state export duty will be imposed as per offer by the both firms during the tender, subject to approval of the Govt.
Sri B.K. Agarwal requested PCCF, Tripura to allow him two days time for acceptance of the same offer and Sri Agarwal will submit the consent letter within two days. Accordingly, PCCF, Tripura allowed two days for submission of his consents.
Meeting ended with thanks to the chair."
[Emphasis for reference] W.P.(C) Nos.117 of 2016 and 626 of 2015 Page 4 of 6 [4] Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel on the basis of the said minutes has submitted that even though both the writ petitioners deposited 2.5 lakhs each, but the timber as promised was not supplied. Further, he has submitted that it was had been decided in the said negotiation that the rest of the timber which has been mentioned in the tender dated 26.11.2004 shall be delivered from the present stock as per the government approved rate. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has emphasized that the word 'government approved rate' has to be understood in the context of the negotiated settlement. [5] Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a strong exception to such submission. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the communication dated 25.10.2013 issued by the petitioner, Annexure-P/8 to the reply filed by the respondents, that the timber worth Rs.2,48,260/- were supplied to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.117 of 2016 and for the sum of Rs.2,49,683/- were supplied to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.626 of 2015. The said communication is an acknowledgment of the said minute. Therefore, the supply commensurate to the money deposit has completed.
[6] In respect of the other point as raised by Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rest of the timber will be supplied to the petitioners at the government rate W.P.(C) Nos.117 of 2016 and 626 of 2015 Page 5 of 6 and the word 'government approved rate' as appearing in the minutes dated 11.04.2012 shall be understood as 'approved rate' as was existing on that date i.e. 11.04.2012, cannot be accepted by this court. None of the petitioners has made any averment in their writ petitions whether they have accepted the proposal recorded in the latter part of the minutes or not. The minutes do not constitute any contract, except that part of supplying timber against the deposits.
[7] Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has categorically submitted that the tender process has merged in the negotiated settlement and nothing survives in these writ petitions to be adjudicated or decided. [7] This court finds substantial force in the submission of Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel and accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous as against the deposited sum, supply has already been made. If the petitioners are interested to purchase the timber from the disposable stock, they can only get those at the contemporary rate/price. [8] Having held so, these writ petitions are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Moumita W.P.(C) Nos.117 of 2016 and 626 of 2015 Page 6 of 6